Ask the community...
- DO post questions about your issues.
- DO answer questions and support each other.
- DO post tips & tricks to help folks.
- DO NOT post call problems here - there is a support tab at the top for that :)
Join the conversation
Join the conversation
This might sound obvious but double-check that all your addendum pages are actually signed if signatures are required. I've had rejections because I forgot to sign page 2 of a multi-page addendum.
Good catch - I'll verify all signatures are in place.
Also make sure whoever signed has authority. Some states are getting stricter about verifying signatory authority on complex filings.
UPDATE: Got it figured out! It was a combination of issues - we weren't numbering the addendum pages properly, had slight formatting differences in the debtor name between forms, and our reference language on the main form wasn't explicit enough. Used some of the suggestions here and all three filings went through. Thanks everyone!
Great outcome. Always satisfying when multiple small fixes solve a big problem.
Nice work troubleshooting it. For future complex filings, that document checker I mentioned earlier has saved me so much time on catching these little inconsistencies before submission.
Join the conversation
Priority dating is crucial here - make sure you document exactly when you discovered the name discrepancy and when you submitted corrections. If there's any gap in perfection, you could lose priority to other creditors. Farm operations often have multiple lenders so priority matters a lot.
That's my biggest worry. We've got ag equipment financing, an operating line of credit, and seasonal inventory financing all secured by different collateral. If our UCC-1 isn't perfect, we could lose priority on everything.
Document everything and consider filing a corrective statement if needed. Most courts will protect you if you can show the error was purely ministerial and not substantive.
Update: Finally got the corrected UCC-1 accepted after matching the exact entity name from the charter. Turns out we also had to adjust the collateral description to separate equipment from farm products inventory. Used the document verification tool mentioned here and it caught two other small discrepancies I missed. Thanks for all the advice - farm products filings are definitely more complex than regular commercial UCC filings but at least our lien is properly perfected now.
Which document tool did you end up using? Always looking for ways to catch these errors before filing.
The Certana.ai thing - just uploaded the charter and UCC forms and it flagged the name issues plus some address formatting problems I hadn't noticed. Pretty straightforward.
Join the conversation
For anyone else reading this thread, I'd recommend always requesting a copy of the UCC-3 termination statement when you pay off any secured loan. Most lenders will provide it if you ask, and it saves you from having to dig through state databases later to verify everything was filed correctly.
This is solid advice. I've started doing this for all my equipment loans and it's already caught one filing error before it became a problem.
Agreed. It's such a simple thing to request but can save huge headaches down the road.
Just wanted to add that if anyone runs into this issue with a dealership that's no longer in business, you'll need to work directly with the original lender or their successor. Had this happen when a local dealership closed and it was a real pain to track down who was responsible for filing the termination.
That's a good point. Business closures can really complicate UCC matters. Sometimes the files get transferred to other dealers or lenders.
Yep, and if the original secured party is out of business with no successor, you might need to petition the court for a termination order. It's rare but it happens.
Join the conversation
Just curious - what's the filing fee for UCC-3 continuations in Georgia these days? I haven't filed one there in a while.
It's $15 for electronic filing, $25 for paper filing. Pretty reasonable compared to some other states.
That's not bad. Some states charge way more for continuations.
This whole thread is making me nervous about my own Georgia filings. I have two continuations coming up this year and now I'm worried about name formatting issues. Going to pull all my original UCC-1s and double-check everything.
Better safe than sorry! The stress of a rejected filing close to the deadline is not worth it.
Smart move. I keep a calendar reminder 6 months before each lapse date so I have plenty of time to deal with any issues.
Angel Campbell
Quick question - does the value have to be equal to the amount of the secured debt? Or can you have a security interest worth more than the value given?
0 coins
Diez Ellis
•Right, you can have a $100,000 piece of equipment securing a $50,000 loan. The value requirement is about the consideration for the security agreement, not matching values.
0 coins
Angel Campbell
•Got it, that makes sense. The value requirement is just about having valid consideration for the agreement itself.
0 coins
Payton Black
Bottom line for everyone still reading: the secured party must give value. In equipment financing, that's your loan. Make sure your documents clearly show the connection between the loan and the security interest. If you're worried about getting it right, tools like Certana.ai can verify your documentation meets all the UCC requirements before you finalize anything. Much better to catch issues early than deal with an invalid security interest later.
0 coins
Raul Neal
•Thanks everyone, this has been really helpful. I feel much more confident about the value requirement now.
0 coins
Harold Oh
•Great thread, learned a lot about the secured party obligations I hadn't considered before.
0 coins